We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
EVALUATION STUDIES
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Dimensional error in selective laser sintering and 3D-printing of models for craniomaxillary anatomy reconstruction.
Journal of Cranio-maxillo-facial Surgery 2008 December
BACKGROUND: Selective laser sintering (SLS) and three-dimensional printing (3DPtrade mark) are rapid prototyping (RP) techniques to fabricate prototypes from biomedical images. To be used in maxillofacial surgery, these models must accurately reproduce the craniofacial skeleton.
PURPOSE: To analyze the capacity of SLS and 3DPtrade mark models to reproduce craniomaxillary anatomy and their dimensional error.
MATERIAL: Dry skull, helical computed-tomography images, SLS and 3DPtrade mark prototypes, and electronic calliper.
METHODS: Tomographic images of a dry skull were manipulated with the InVesalius biomedical software. Prototypes were fabricated using SLS and 3DPtrade mark techniques. Ten linear measurements were made on the models and compared with corresponding dry skull measurements (criterion standard) carried out with an electronic calliper.
RESULTS: We observed a dimensional error of 2.10 and 2.67% for SLS and 3DPtrade mark models, respectively. The models satisfactorily reproduced anatomic details, except for thin bones, small foramina and acute bone projections. The SLS prototypes showed greater dimensional precision and reproduced craniomaxillary anatomy more accurately than the 3DPtrade mark models.
CONCLUSION: Both SLS and 3DPtrade mark models provided acceptable precision and may be useful aids in most maxillofacial surgeries.
PURPOSE: To analyze the capacity of SLS and 3DPtrade mark models to reproduce craniomaxillary anatomy and their dimensional error.
MATERIAL: Dry skull, helical computed-tomography images, SLS and 3DPtrade mark prototypes, and electronic calliper.
METHODS: Tomographic images of a dry skull were manipulated with the InVesalius biomedical software. Prototypes were fabricated using SLS and 3DPtrade mark techniques. Ten linear measurements were made on the models and compared with corresponding dry skull measurements (criterion standard) carried out with an electronic calliper.
RESULTS: We observed a dimensional error of 2.10 and 2.67% for SLS and 3DPtrade mark models, respectively. The models satisfactorily reproduced anatomic details, except for thin bones, small foramina and acute bone projections. The SLS prototypes showed greater dimensional precision and reproduced craniomaxillary anatomy more accurately than the 3DPtrade mark models.
CONCLUSION: Both SLS and 3DPtrade mark models provided acceptable precision and may be useful aids in most maxillofacial surgeries.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app